The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[Skepsis]

First, this

Nothingness is what we might denote as evil, bad, decay etc.. As you've mentioned (I think), the default state things should return to.

Contradicts this

Now the creator didn't create nothing.God didn't create nothing, he created something. God is something. Gods opposite > evil > gravitates towards nothing.

It is contradictory because God created the potential for nothing, which is effectively creating nothing. Practical nothing.
You are equivocating the word "nothing". Things don't tend toward absolute nothing; they tend towards a practical nothing.

Can I just point out: Christians don't go along with the definition of God as omnibenevolant AFAIK. Benevolant, yes.

News to me. I was under the impression that the reason the argument from evil/suffering had such a foothold was due to that very belief.
Oh, and by the way, you just conceded the argument. I'll still argue against benevolence, but for all intents and purposes omnibenevolence was the target. The reason people don't like to relinquish omnibenevolence is due to the fact that, once omnibenevolence has been taken out of the picture, so has the notion of a "perfect God".
But you and "Christians" don't go along with that.
And that's fine.

All I can understand from that is that God could have created nothing and spared us all the suffering. To me that reads: God could have left evil (nothing) in place and done nothing constructive. (unintentional pun).

Nothingness isn't evil. Nothingness is nothingness.
Your God is capable of anything that is logically possible. Not creating a universe is logically possible and doesn't contradict any of his attributes, except for the one you made up- he doesn't have to create a thing.

So Yes, God created a world with no unnecessary suffering: this one.

This world is full of unneeded suffering. If there could be a potential world with less suffering, this world has too much.

2. Now I can think of an answer: God had to create the world because it was in his nature to do so. Being a creator is part of what makes him him. He couldn't not create.

Your God couldn't resist the will to create? Why? I thought the strongest thing in the universe was God's will. Being a creator is one of his assumed attributes which I grant for the sake of argument, but it is by no means an integral part of a God's nature. He has the power to create, and so he has to?

The situation with the militia is a end point of a series of events that inevitably ended up here. No chance involved. It is merely a playing out of parts.

In this world. In another world nearly identical to this one, a God could have easily made that woman live and her child survive.

The child suffers and dies because of the situation it's born into.

And God doesn't care. Scary, huh? How he could have made a world without the death of the child?

I see no unnecessary sufferring. The events led to the outcome. Events took on their natural course and what was always going to happen, happened. It's very sad from the mothers POV and from a human POV. But what has that got to do with the balance of nature that governs all of this? Is nature not playing it's part fully? No, nature is acting out the play just as it should. It can do no other. Action is producing reaction, the necessary course of events always happens.

Once again, in this world.
Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating the world as he wants, just as he is incapable of withholding the will to create?

Yes, my God created everything. He didn't create nothing, however.

Nope, just the potential for nothingness, the potential for decay. I still think this violates your logic that a creator God can't destroy, because he is responsible for all decay and death and suffering and destruction due to the fat that he created a universe in the state that it exists now, with its laws and inherent properties as they are.

It is impossible to create nothing, which also has to apply to God.

The "nothing" that exists before God created was evil, if I recall. If one can't create nothingness, why is there decay?
This is why you denote change in the meaning a single word like "nothing".
God created the potential for decay and a practical "nothing".

That's convenient to change what I said to "all". Poor point, poorly executed

Creation of everything entails decay of everything, once again creating a state of nothingness. Atoms would be separated by miles.

There is satan in christian dogma of course. But did satan pre-exist or co-exist with God? No, God is superior, because satan is a lesser force: a force that had to have something to subtract from.

So Satan is responsible for decay? God is responcible for Satan.

You might think that something could destroy nothing.

I don't.

But then we couldn't have nothing. We would have to live in a world where something was the default position. Like solid is what all things decay towards. the universe would be setting like a large jelly. In this scenario, nothing would have to be the creative force. Nothing God was nothing and he impacted nothingness all over reality ...except that doesn't quite work.. because to create something he'd have to leave a little bit of solid, which would be the bad stuff he existed to get rid of in the first place. And how can nothing be existant??

This is a whole lot of nothing.

Hopefully that serves some purpose lol!

Maybe for someone, but not for me.

You state it, but I've never seen it explained.

Remind me what "it" is please. Forgot. LOLOLOL.

As you can see from my address of your African example, I don't accept your point at all. It doesn't explain "unnecessary" at all.

Your answer, in effect, is "The world works like it does because the world works like it does." The laws themselves are subject to change by God, so your defence is paper thin and meaningless.

I'm sorry, I've missed the part where you came up with a better model for reality.

Any model without unneeded suffering.
Unneeded suffering is suffering that could be averted if God had created the world in a way contrary to this one, where limited sufferings occurred.